CA9: Seizure of a vehicle for 30 days for no DL without alternatives was unreasonable

Plaintiffs get summary judgment on their damages claim against the County and officers for impounding vehicles if the driver never had a valid DL rather than letting others take the vehicle. It was an unreasonable seizure. The state has a valid interest in keeping unlicensed drivers off the road, but the community caretaking function doesn’t go that far. Sandoval v. County of Sonoma, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 36147 (9th Cir. Dec. 21, 2018). Summary by the court:

California Vehicle Code § 14602.6(a)(1) provides that a peace officer may impound a vehicle for 30 days if the vehicle’s driver has never been issued a driver’s license. California authorities interpreted section 14602.6 as applying to individuals who had never been issued a California driver’s license. Applying this interpretation, law enforcement officials impounded plaintiffs’ vehicles for 30-days even though plaintiffs attempted to have friends with valid California licenses take possession of the vehicles.

Citing Brewster v. Beck, 859 F.3d 1194, 1196-97 (9th Cir. 2017), the panel first noted that 30-day impounds under section 14602.6 are seizures for Fourth Amendment purposes and that the only issue in this case was whether the impounds were reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. The panel held that although the state’s interest in keeping unlicensed drivers off the road provided a “community caretaking” exception to the Fourth Amendment, the application of the exception turned on the facts and circumstances of each case. The panel determined that defendants had failed to provide any justifications for the impounds other than general arguments that such impounds were justified as a deterrence or penalty. The panel rejected these arguments, at least on the facts of this case, and held that the district court did not err by granting summary judgment for plaintiffs on their Fourth Amendment claims.

The panel affirmed the district court’s summary judgment for plaintiffs on their claim that the County of Sonoma and the City of Santa Rosa were liable for money damages as final policymakers who caused the constitutional violations. The panel held that the impoundment of plaintiffs’ vehicles was not caused by state law, but by the defendants’ policies of impounding vehicles when the driver had never been issued a California driver’s license.